Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
suggested the desirability of the modification. In re Gordon,
733 F.2d at 902, 221 USPQ at 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Maus
contains no such suggestion. Accordingly, we shall not
sustain the standing § 103 rejection of claim 10, or of claims
11-17 which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Maus.
Independent claim 18 is directed to an apparatus for
forming an article from molten resin comprising, inter alia,
first and second mold members supported by first and second
platen members, with both of said mold members surrounded by a
relatively movable frame, whereby the oversized mold cavity is
formed by contact of said frame with one of the mold members.6
Maus discloses in Figures 2-8, for example, a first mold
member 5a, 70 and a second mold member 5b supported,
respectively, by first and second mold platens 82, 90. Maus
further discloses a relatively movable frame 74 surrounding
6As noted above, the whereby clause at the end of
paragraph (b) of claim 18 is the subject of a rejection under
35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, for indefiniteness. For purposes of
rendering a decision of the merits of the standing § 103
rejection of this claim, we interpret the “whereby” clause at
the end of paragraph (b) of claim 18 as reading “whereby said
oversized mold cavity is formed by contact of said frame with
one of said mold members.”
21
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007